Why the Jetpack Never Took Off, and Other Tales of Failed Technologies

Image: martinjetpack/Flickr

You’ve probably heard about Amazon’s delivery drone concept. But do you know about the very real robots already on their warehouse floors, moving your packages around more efficiently than a human ever could?

The Economist pointed out in its March special issue that robotics as a discipline suffers from “the high visibility of its promises and the near-invisibility of its successes.” I’d argue robotics is far from the only area where an overemphasis on possibility (and de-emphasis of reality) has caused us to fall behind when it comes to innovation.

In popular culture, art and entertainment, we’re bombarded with images of “futuristic” technologies. From the Jetsons’ personal robots to Back to the Future-style time travel, many fictional marvels seem beyond our reach, and we often assume they will never materialize. Meanwhile, newspapers and blogs inundate us with equally “futuristic” marvels like the Martin Jetpack — a technology that is, in fact, 80 years old. And yet I’ve still never seen one in the street. It takes decades for some of the real scientific advances to reach us — that is, if they ever see the light of day.

So why this disconnect between the technologies we hear about and the ones that actually come to market?

Here are a few of the reasons why great technologies often fail to succeed:

1. The Problem: Prejudice

In a perfect world, any great product would be met with open arms. In reality, people (and governments) often have strong prejudices against certain ideas and technologies. For example, although nuclear power is demonstrably safer for people and the environment than many other forms of energy, a few high-profile accidents have created a strong market prejudice against it, especially in the United States. Another good example of this prejudice is genetically-modified food (or GMO), which hasn’t been proven to be dangerous but is nonetheless avoided by many. Genetic testing (23andme.com) is yet another example – the technology was named “Invention of the Year” by TIME Magazine in 2008 but later outlawed by the FDA.

When a product faces unpredicted — often irrational — intolerance, its creators may have to wage a public relations campaign to try to change perceptions. This isn’t easy and often doesn’t come naturally to scientists and inventors. Many give up on products at this stage, or push them into small niche markets.

The Remedy: It doesn’t make sense to give up on innovative products simply because they make some people uncomfortable. Instead, we need to find ways to change market perceptions. To do this, scientists need to work with policymakers, news outlets and educators to inform people about the benefits of these products (and the realities of their drawbacks), using examples and data to make their case and defeat irrational prejudice.

2. The Problem: Misrepresentation

For scientists, publicity can be a blessing and a curse. While the media can bring much-needed attention to overlooked breakthroughs, it can also shine far too bright a light on unrealistic technologies, blowing their properties or possibilities out of proportion. This gap in expectations can make it difficult to marshall resources to take products from ideas to reality.

People have long dreamed of replacing two-dimensional screens with 3D holograms, a staple of sci-fi movies. Dennis Gabor won the 1971 Nobel Prize in physics for inventing holography (based on a patent written in 1947.) However, though holograms have ostensibly been around for nearly 50 years, they are far from a household technology. Tupac was brought back to life and Indian politician Narendra Modi has made campaign stops using holography, but the technology hasn’t been commercialized because the engineering challenges have far outstripped expectations.

Another big example of misrepresentation is radioisotopic (or nuclear) batteries, which have gotten a lot of attention from science fiction authors. In 1964, Isaac Asimov predicted that, “The appliances of 2014 will have no electric cords, of course, for they will be powered by long-lived batteries running on radioisotopes.” Fortunately, this did not come true because these devices are too dangerous, even for industrial use. You can, however, find these types of batteries on isolated polar weather stations, for example, where they pose little threat to people.

The Remedy: Scientists should take the time to explain the challenges behind mass adoption and temper expectations for these technologies. They are in the perfect position to offer a more realistic perspective of how long it will take to bring scientific advances to life — and to explain why this matters.

3. The Problem: Human Inertia (a.k.a. The Caveman Principle)

The Caveman Principle points out that human beings are programmed by their evolution. Sometimes this programming does not jibe well with modern technology. For example, Bill Gates once predicted that the internet would, “encourage people to move away from city centers… [and] set off a positive-feedback cycle, encouraging rural living.”

Of course this didn’t really happen, because we generally prefer to have other human beings nearby, even if it isn’t strictly necessary for our work or well-being anymore.

Google Glass is a good example of a technology bumping up against the Caveman Principle. It’s unclear whether the real-world overlay glasses will succeed in gaining mass adoption, largely due to the “unnatural” way they make us split our attention. On the other hand, the computer mouse flourished because it takes our tactile nature into account. It’s unclear at this point whether the unintuitive Google Glass interface will be able to surmount the Caveman Principle and achieve mass adoption.

The Remedy: Inventors and investors must keep in mind that, no matter how amazing or game-changing a new technology may seem, if it requires people to go against their fundamental instincts or way of being, adoption will be an uphill climb. While possible, adoption will require long-term educational campaigns, and the outcome is hard to predict.

Moving Forward

It’s important to recognize that technology isn’t simply dreamed up in a lab and produced in a factory. The lifecycle of any given product or idea is complex and dependent on many factors. It starts long before there is anything to touch or see and ends long after a product exits the factory floor. It also involves far more people than just scientists and engineers.

One place this lifecycle can begin is in the university classroom. To help future engineers overcome the challenges described above, we should teach them to consider not just engineering hurdles but the many “human” obstacles they’ll encounter as well and give them realistic strategies to persevere.
We must also emphasize that, when a product enters the market, the innovation lifecycle is far from over. Instead, this moment is the perfect time to start educating the public on its benefits and potential uses and work to overcome prejudice, misconceptions and inertia whenever possible.

Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers

We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on. So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it.